[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wick (whistleblower) (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal. Clearly no consensus to delete; consensus is slightly in favor of merging than keeping. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Wick (whistleblower)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
John Wick (whistleblower) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The subject was newly identified as being involved in a growing political scandal in May, and a biographical article created. The article was taken to AFD the same day on the grounds of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS and the result was "keep".

This was not clear-cut; there were also a significant number of users agreeing with delete/redirect in line with the nomination, but the newness of the article, the fact the event was very significant and still unfolding at that time, and the possibility that Wicks might turn out to have a more significant involvement, were factors that some users took into account at the time of the first AFD in May.

2 months have passed. The story and article are now stable, yet no other notable information has been added not any other personal basis of notability found, beyond that of a middleman between a leaker and the press. However this is covered fully and in more detail in the article on the scandal itself. At this point, it doesn't seem that any further grounds are imminently likely to emerge (WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOT cover the issue of hoped-for notability at AFD).

My own comment at the time:

  • Many people play "pivotal roles" in notable incidents who themselves are not considered notable. Apart from "passed on data from person A to person B", what exactly is notable about John Wick, or is it just that he played a role in the given incident? In the context of this controversy, so far he is the delivery boy. He is not the leaker, and he was not a decision maker in the case, he was simply a go-between for a source and a recipient newspaper, a once-off minor role. If it hadn't been him, some other person would have been asked to act as go-between. In this context the person "John Wick" isn't by usual norms, notable, he could have been any person chosen by the actual leaker/source (who would be notable).
  • To the extent there is information of encyclopedic interest about him, so far it can all be said in one line, perhaps two, and all pertains to the parliamentary matter.

Despite the rapidly developing events, no real basis of historical notability beyond WP:BLP1E existed for this individual at the time of the initial AFD, and despite the hopes, none has been found or added since. The article on him does not contain good material showing personal notability, but instead is a collation of the kinds of "human interest" background material that anyone in the media might have gathered - past employments, clubs he is a member of, current business activities, tabloid claims and controversies over failed businesses or debts, etc.

When all said and done, John Wick is likely to remain a classic case of WP:BLP1E for the foreseeable future, a person who played a role in one event that "could have been anyone" and is completely non-notable otherwise. At the time there might have been grounds to be wary of too-rapid deletion, but that's 2 months in the past now and nothing new has happened to give him any added grounds for notability since then.

I think it's time the article on Wicks was deleted in favor of a redirect to the article on the event, which covers the historical event, contains a short section covering everything salient about his involvement, and does so in more direct detail and better context.

FT2 (Talk | email) 14:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I was the nominator the first time around. Martin451 (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really add or change much. Businesses and business owners are ten a penny; there needs to be some actual basis for historical notability. This isn't "significant coverage of the subject". Many businesses may well get press mentions now and then, more so if they have a PR department, or if a small article is written on some product or service offered that year; that's usual, it's "routine news coverage". Being a company offering piracy insurance doesn't much add to the company's notability unless it's likely for some reason to have historical value, nor that of its owner. (mirror link if it refuses to load, for review) FT2 (Talk | email) 12:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my comment to keep. Reliable source (very - The Times). A different event (completely - It was several months before the whistleblower thing had even started). More than a minor mention (yes significant - He is named five times; quoted at least 3 times; it gives us some biog specifically about him such as what regiments he was in and it tells us he is the founding director of the company offering this service). It is not an advert, it is there because this is an interesting story, interesting enough to be in a top national newspaper, not just a business development. Whilst I agree strongly that wikipedia is not the news and the article should not be kept on this alone it proves he is a notable individual beyond BLP1E. Therefore much as I would otherwise agree with the 1E reason this is now not 1E. Polargeo (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does an article on a product by a company make that company's owner personally notable? Of course he'll be quoted, and of course it'll give some personal background. But it's still routine new coverage of products, services and the like offered by businesses. In the context of increased piracy an article saying "interesting news, some companies can get piracy insurance now" is still just routine news. It speaks to WP:INTERESTING for a day and WP:NOT#NEWS; not historic or encyclopedic notability. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small point. WP:INTERESTING is not relevant because it is not what I as a wikipedian find interesting but what a top national newspaper finds interesting. It also seems to find the individual interesting enough to put some biog on him, would this be in a normal article on insurance? Polargeo (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Times says that they are "offering the world’s first insurance policy for shipowners covering potential ransom payouts on crew members who have been kidnapped." He formed the company and he puts the products out, his name gets as many mentions as the company name does in the article. This is far more than a company that he just happens to be a spokesperson for. Polargeo (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that counts as notability, it would be for the company, not the individual who runs it. Even so, I'm not convinced that a company being the first to offer product X should be treated as notable if they are the only company who ever offers product X. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am just trying to state that in this case the individual is pretty much the same thing as the company. It is a company both founded, run and I presume (until this is checked anyway) owned by the individual concerned. This isn't some huge company that he just happens to be a director of which has notability that can be disasociated from him as an individual. He also continues to 'develop new products and services' of the company, as stated on the website. So it looks like he is the first person to come up with and implement this type of insurance. I'd say that takes him beyond BLP1E. Polargeo (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's still just a product. A man wakes up one day and decide to sell a new product related to something topical in the major news media; when its available a major newspaper interviews him about it because it's topical, and writes up something briefly on his product and its vendor in its business pages. It then promptly slides back into usual product oblivion (adverts and PR pieces and the occasional mention aside). No massive follow-up, no signs the world has taken more note of it other than briefly in passing than many other products. This happens a thousand times a month and it doesn't make the product or its provider notable in an encyclopedia sense. Perhaps someone will decide we should have an article on Piracy insurance someday -- but that's a discussion for another day and this isn't it. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my vote (if you like) back to just a comment. I suppose this is an individual on the edge of notability for more than one thing. Although he was arguably a minor player in the expenses scandal there was significant coverage on him as an individual, okay some of it media gossip but a lot of it biog stuff that we can write an article around. Also, although I wouldn't argue an article on these alone he was an officer who rose to the rank of Major and was in the most well know speical forces regiment in the British Army. So there is a lot that can be said about this man. A lot more than can be said about many other people we have biogs on. So I don't understand the eagerness to delete the article. I think you have brought this back to AfD a little too soon FT2. Polargeo (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or keep is a community decision. As for nomination timing, when would have been better? Nothing's imminently going on, nothing's gone on for ages, nothing new seems foreseeable to come out... if something does, at that point we assess it. Basic WP:CRYSTAL really, I'd have thought. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the claim that 2 months has passed and nothing has happened with regard to John Wick or nothing has happened since the last AfD is just not true. Take 'John Wick, middleman who passed on MPs’ expenses, on why he fled the UK' The Times 12 June or 'MPs' expenses: censored files show my actions were justified, says whistleblower' The Telegraph 24 June. I wonder when his book will be published! So based on the result of the last AfD and the further stories, which can be easily found and have indeed come out about the individual concerned, this is premature to bring it back to AfD Polargeo (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry changed back to keep. If you read The Times article of 12 June there is indeed plenty of intrigue specifically about this individual. He is a conservative party fundraiser and knows Lord Ashcroft (the deputy chairman of the conservative party) socially. As the paper says 'The disclosure will raise questions among Labour MPs that the expenses leak might have been a political plot to destabilise Gordon Brown’s Government while at the same time clearing out Tory dead wood. Lord Ashcroft runs a target seats operation from within the Conservative Party’s headquarters.' This individual's part is looking bigger than it was when last brought to AfD. Polargeo (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Wick_(whistleblower)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1074867239"